DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are pending. Priority The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc. , 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/080373, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The ‘373 application fails to provide adequate support for the limitations disclosed in claims 10-20. As discussed below under the objection to the specification, the limitations of claims 10-20 disclose feed media comprising various claimed ingredients, having pH 6.5-8, being serum-free or chemically defined. There is no disclosure in the originally filed specification to provide support for the claimed limitations. Thus, the priority claim to the ‘373 application is not granted, and the earliest filing date for claims 10-20 of the instant application is 11/20/2023 . The priority date for claims 1-9 is granted to the filing date of 62/837,263, which is 4/23/2019 . Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 10-11 and 19-20 disclose that the feed media comprises 50-1500 nM or 50-800 nM of nicotinamide and further comprises 10-200 nM or 10-130 nM of 5-methylthioadenosine. The instant specification fails to provide antecedent basis for the claimed limitation as there is no disclosure for the feed medium comprising the claimed ingredient at the concentration. Claims 12-13 disclose that the feed media further comprises additional ingredients including those listed in claim 12 and claim 13. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation in the instant specification. Claim 14 discloses that the pH of the feed media is between 6.5 and 8. There is no antecedent basis in the instant specification. The specification discloses the pH of the cell culture medium but there is no disclosure of the pH of the feed medium. C laims 15-16 disclose that the “feed media” is a “serum free media” (claim 15) or “chemically defined media” (claim 16). The instant specification does not provide any antecedent basis for the “feed media” being “serum free” or “chemically defined”. Rather the specification only discloses that “cell culture medium” is serum-free or chemically defined. Claim Objections Claims 6-7, 9-10, 12-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 6-7, 10, 12-16 disclose the term “media”. It would be more appropriate to change to “medium”. Claim 9 discloses the term “nm” in line 1. It should be “ nM ” instead. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim (s) 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (US PAT. 10,961,500) As discussed above under Specification, the priority date of claims 10-20 has been determined as 11/20/2023, and thus, the cited reference is qualified as a prior art. Regarding claims 10-11 and 19-20 , Xue et al. teach a method of producing aflibercept by culturing eukaryotic cells expressing aflibercept in a cell culture medium comprising 10-200 nM of 5-methylthioadenosine and 50-2000 nM of nicotinamide (col. 2). Xue et al. teach that the cell culture medium can comprise a feed medium (col. 2). However, Xue et al. do not teach that the feed medium comprising the 5- methylthioadenosine and nicotinamide as required. However, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use 5-methylthioadenosine and nicotinamide in the feed medium with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to do so because Xue et al. teach that the feed medium includes a medium containing one or more nutrients that can be added to the culture beginning [and/or] at some time after inoculation (col. 11). As 5-methylthioadenosine is supplemented to the cell culture medium (col. 20, claim 1), one skilled in the art would use the feed medium to supplement 5-methylthioadenosine to the cell culture medium. For the same reason, one skilled in the art would supplement nicotinamide as a part of the feed medium to the cell culture medium. Regarding claim 12 , Xue et al. teach that the cell culture medium can optionally further comprise one or more acids selected from lactic acid, phenyl lactic acid, indole lactic acid, succinic acid, alpha- hydroxyisovaleri c acid, alpha- hydroxyisocaproic acid, 2-(4-hydroxy-phenyl)lactic acid or 2-hydroxy-3-methylvaleric acid, salts of these acids (col. 2). However, Xue et al. do not teach the feed medium comprises these additional acids. However, for the same reason as discussed above, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium comprising the listed acids to supplement to the cell culture medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 13 directed to the feed medium further comprising sugars, amino acids, vitamins, etc., while Xue et al. teach that these additional ingredients are optionally further comprised in the cell culture medium, however, they do not teach the feed medium comprises the additional ingredients. As Xue et al. teach that the feed medium includes a medium containing one or more nutrients that can be added to the culture beginning [and/or] at some time after inoculation (col. 11), and the additional ingredients are considered as one or more nutrients, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add these additional ingredients in the feed medium to supplement to the cell culture medium. Regarding claim 14 directed to the pH of the feed medium, Xue et al. teach the pH of the cell culture medium being 6.5-8 (col. 2). However, they are silent for the pH of the feed medium. However, as the pH for the cell culture medium is pH 6.5-8, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium at the same pH range as the cell culture medium in order to maintain the same range upon the supplementation with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 15-16 directed to the feed medium being serum-free or chemically defined, while Xue et al. teach the cell culture medium is serum-free or chemically defined (col.2), they do not teach that the feed medium is serum-free or chemical defined. However, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have the feed medium of Xue et al. as serum-free or chemically defined as the complete medium with a reasonable expectation of success in order to maintain the same serum-free or chemically-defined cell culture medium upon the supplementation with the feed medium. Regarding claims 17-18 directed to soy hydrolysate, Xue et al. teach that the feed medium comprises a basal medium and at least one type of hydrolysate, e.g. soy-based hydrolysate (col.11). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim (s) 10, 1 3 -17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 2018/0223249; IDS ref.) in view of Gorfien et al. (US 2006/0148074 ; IDS ref. ) . Johnson et al. teach a method of culturing CHO cells, BHK cells, myeloma cell lines, etc. for producing Fc-fusion proteins such as aflibercept using a cell culture medium that does not contain animal sera, serum-free chemically defined medium (paras. 47, 51, 59, 83, 106-107, 110). Johnson et al. teach that the culture medium is supplemented with vitamins and cofactors including nicotinamide (p.16, claim 115), or niacinamide (para. 71). It is well known in the art that niacinamide is the same as nicotinamide. Johnson et al. teach that a concentrated feed medium contains mixtures of supplemental nutrients (para. 91). Johnson et al. do not teach the concentration range of nicotinamide being about 50-1500 nM (claims 10 and 19 ). Gorfien et al. teach a serum-free chemically defined mammalian cell culture medium for in vitro cultivation to increase the level of expression of recombinant protein in cultured cells (see abstract). Gorfien et al. teach the mammalian cells are human embryonic kidney cell line (293 cells) and CHO cells (paras. 18-19, 22-23 and 41). The culture medium of Gorfien et al. as shown in Table 1 comprises niacinamide (i.e. nicotinamide) at the range of 0.1-10 mg/L, and it is calculated as 819 nM – 81.9 M based on the MW of niacinamide/nicotinamide being 122.12 g/L, and the range of niacinamide taught by Gorfien et al. is overlapping with 50-1500 nM. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the range of niacinamide taught by Gorfien et al. for the culture medium of Johnson et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to use the concentration range taught by Gorfien et al. This is because the culture medium of Gorfien et al. as well as Johnson et al. is intended to increase recombinant protein expressed in epithelial cells/fibroblast cells such as HEK 293 and CHO cells, and both culture medium of Gorfien et al. and Johnson et al. are serum-free, chemically defined, one skilled in the art would recognize that the concentration of ingredients used in the culture medium of Gorfien et al. can be utilized for the culture medium of Johnson et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. While Johnson et al. in view of Gorfien et al. do not particularly teach that the feed medium containing nicotinamide, however, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium comprising the nicotinamide to be supplemented into the cell culture medium for producing aflibercept. A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to do so because Johnson et al. teach the use of feed medium comprising supplemental ingredients that would be added to the cell culture medium. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium of Johnson et al. to supplement nicotinamide to the cell culture medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 13, Johnson et al. teach that the supplemental feed , i.e. feed medium, may contain vitamins, amino acids, etc. (para. 89). Regarding claim 14 directed to the pH of the feed medium, Johnson et al. do not particularly teach the limitation. However, it is extremely well known in the art that the culture medium for the cell lines taught by Johnson et al. for expressing a recombinant protein is typically maintained at neural pH, e.g. pH 7.0. In fact, Johnson et al. teach a pH for the production of a monoclonal antibody being 7.0 + 0.15 or 7.13 + 0.27 (para. 115) . As the pH for the culture medium is about pH7.0, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium at the same pH range as the culture medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 15-16 directed to the feed medium being serum-free or chemically defined, Johnson et al. in view of Gorfien et al. do not particularly teach the limitation. However, as Johnson et al. teach the feed medium, and the complete medium being serum-free or chemically defined, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have the feed medium of Johnson et al. as serum-free or chemically defined as the complete medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 1 7 directed to soy hydrolysate, Johnson et al. teach that the serum-free medium contain soy hydrolysate (para. 59). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (supra) in view of Gorfien et al. (supra) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Maiorella et al. (WO1989/004867; IDS ref. ) and Li et al. (201 2 , Bioch . Bioeng .; IDS ref. ) Regarding claim 12 directed to the cell culture medium further comprising lactic acid, Johnson et al. in view of Gorfien et al. do not teach the limitation. Maiorella et al. teach a method of increasing product expression through solute stress in animal cell culture (see abstract), and that the introducing an environment of solute stress during fermentation can favor an increase in specific antibody expression and/or increased culture longevity which can result in an increase in antibody titer (p.6, line 31 thru p.7. line12), and the presence of lactate during fermentation can effectively increase antibody yield notwithstanding its inhibitory growth effects (p.13, lines 27-30). Maiorella et al. teach the cell lines used may be cell lines of diverse mammalian origin including myeloma cell lines (p.15, lines 1-4). Li et al. teach that feeding exogenous lactate, particularly couple with feedback pH control, may provide process benefits in the method of producing antibodies in CHO cells (see entire document; Conclusions). It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use lactate (i.e. lactic acid) as taught by Maiorella et al. or Li et al. in the culture medium of Johnson et al. in view of Gorfien et al. because Maiorella et al. teach a beneficial effect of lactate in the production of antibodies in mammalian cells including myeloma cell lines, and Li et al. teach benefits feeding lactate in the method of antibody production of CHO cells, one skilled in the art would recognize the beneficial effect of lactate in increasing antibody titers, and lactate is a suitable ingredient used in the culture medium for the method of Johnson et al. in view of Gorfien et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,961,500 in view of Johnson et al. ( supra ) , Maiorella et al. (supra) and Li et al. (supra) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘500 patent disclose a method of culturing eukaryotic cells to produce aflibercept comprising culturing the eukaryotic cells in a culture medium supplemented with 5-methylthioadenosine at 10-200 nM . The claims of the ‘500 patent disclose other cell culture medium components as claimed in the instant application (RE: claim 3), serum-free medium (RE: claim 6), or a chemically-defined medium (RE: claim 7). Regarding the nicotinamide at 50-1500 nM in the feed medium (RE: claim 10), the claims of the ‘500 patent do not disclose the limitation. However, it is known in the art that nicotinamide is used in the cell culture medium for producing a recombinant protein such as aflibercept according to Johnson et al., and Johnson et al. teach the cell culture medium comprising the claimed concentration of nicotinamide. As Johnson et al. teach the use of feed medium, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium comprising the nicotinamide to be supplemented into the cell culture medium for producing aflibercept. Regarding the other ingredients of the feed medium (RE: claims 12-13), Johnson et al. as well as Maiorella et al. and Li et al. teach the supplemental ingredient to the cell culture medium. Thus, it would have been obvious to use the cell culture ingredients taught by Johnson et al., Maiorella et al. and Li et al. would be utilized for the method of the ‘500 patent. Regarding claim 14 directed to the pH of the feed medium, the claims of the ‘500 patent do not particularly teach the limitation. However, it is extremely well known in the art that the culture medium for expressing a recombinant protein such as aflibercept is typically maintained at neural pH, e.g. pH 7.0. For example, Johnson et al. teach a pH for the production of a monoclonal antibody being 7.0 + 0.15 or 7.13 + 0.27 (para. 115) . As the pH for the culture medium is about pH7.0, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium at the same pH range as the culture medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding the serum-free or chemically defined feed medium (RE: claims 15-16), as discussed above, Johnson et al. teach the feed medium, and the complete medium being serum-free or chemically defined, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have the feed medium of Johnson et al. as serum-free or chemically defined as the complete medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 17-18 directed to soy hydrolysate, Johnson et al. teach that the serum-free medium contain soy hydrolysate (para. 59). Thus, it would have been obvious to use soy hydrolysate in the method of the ‘500 patent. Thus, the claims of the ‘500 patent in view of the cited references render the claims of the instant application obvious. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,286,460 in view of Johnson et al. (supra), Maiorella et al. (supra) and Li et al . (supra) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘460 patent teach a method for culturing eukaryotic cells to produce a recombinant protein by culturing eukaryotic cells in a defined cell culture medium supplemented with nicotinamide at a concentration of 50-1500 nM and/or 5-methylthioadenosine at about 10-200 nM. The claims of the ‘460 patent also disclose that the cell culture medium is serum-free or chemically-defined. The claims of the ‘460 patent do not particularly teach the recombinant protein being aflibercept, however, it is known in the art that a protein of interest can be expressed in eukaryotic cells in a cell culture medium and aflibercept is one example that can be produced by such method according to Johnson et al. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the method of the ‘460 patent for producing aflibercept with a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, the scope of the recombinant protein of the ‘460 patent encompasses aflibercept according to the specification of the ‘460 patent. Regarding the nicotinamide at 50-1500 nM or 50-800 nM in the feed medium (RE: claim 10 and 19), the claims of the ‘460 patent do not disclose the limitation. However, it is known in the art that cell culture supplement ingredients would be supplemented to the cell culture medium in the form of a concentrated feed medium according to Johnson et al. (para. 91). As Johnson et al. teach the use of feed medium, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium comprising the nicotinamide as well as 5-methylthioadenosine of the ‘460 patent to be supplemented into the cell culture medium for producing aflibercept. Regarding the other ingredients of the feed medium (RE: claims 12-13), Johnson et al. as well as Maiorella et al. and Li et al. teach the supplemental ingredient to the cell culture medium. Thus, it would have been obvious to use the cell culture ingredients taught by Johnson et al., Maiorella et al. and Li et al. in the form of a concentrated feed medium supplemented to the cell culture medium of the ‘460 patent. Regarding claim 14 directed to the pH of the feed medium, the claims of the ‘460 patent do not particularly teach the limitation. However, it is extremely well known in the art that the culture medium for expressing a recombinant protein such as aflibercept is typically maintained at neural pH, e.g. pH 7.0. For example, Johnson et al. teach a pH for the production of a monoclonal antibody being 7.0 + 0.15 or 7.13 + 0.27 (para. 115) . As the pH for the culture medium is about pH7.0, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium at the same pH range as the culture medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding the serum-free or chemically defined feed medium (RE: claims 15-16), as discussed above, Johnson et al. teach the feed medium, and the complete medium being serum-free or chemically defined, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to have the feed medium of Johnson et al. as serum-free or chemically defined as the complete medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 17-18 directed to soy hydrolysate, Johnson et al. teach that the serum-free medium contain soy hydrolysate (para. 59). Thus, it would have been obvious to use soy hydrolysate in the method of the ‘460 patent. Thus, the claims of the ‘460 patent in view of the cited references render the claims of the instant application obvious. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,555,176 in view of Johnson et al. (supra) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘176 patent disclose a method for culturing eukaryotic cells to produce aflibercept by culturing the eukaryotic cells expressing aflibercept in a cell culture medium supplemented with 5-methylthioadenosine at 10-200 nM and nicotinamide at 100-800 nM . The claims of the ‘176 patent further disclose the cell culture ingredients disclosed in the instant claims (RE: claims 3-4); pH 6.5-8.0 (RE: claim 5); serum-free or chemically defined medium (RE: claims 6-7). Regarding the feed medium comprising nicotinamide at 50-1500 nM or 50-800 nM (RE: claims 10 and 19) or 5-methylthioadenosine at 10-200 nM or 10-130 nM (RE: claims 11 and 20), the claims of the ‘176 patent do not disclose “feed medium”. However, as the claims of the ‘176 patent disclose a step of supplementing the cell culture medium with nicotinamide and/or 5-methylthioadenosine, and Johnson et al. teach the use of a concentrated feed medium to supplement a cell culture medium for the method of producing a recombinant protein such as aflibercept, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use a feed medium comprising supplemental ingredients to add to the cell culture medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding the use of soy hydrolysate in the cell culture medium (RE: claims 17-18), the claims of the ‘176 patent do not disclose the limitation. However, it is known in the art that soy hydrolysate can be used in a serum-free medium for producing a recombinant protein such as aflibercept according to Johnson et al. (para. 59). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use soy hydrolysate for the method of the ‘176 patent with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the claims of the ‘176 patent in view of Johnson et al. render the claims of the instant application obvious. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 1 1,821,001 in view of Johnson et al. (supra) and Daly et al. (US Pat. 7,279,159; IDS ref.) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘001 patent disclose a method for culturing eukaryotic cells to produce a fusion protein capable of binding to VEGF by culturing the eukaryotic cells expressing the fusion protein in a cell culture medium supplemented with 5-methylthioadenosine at 10-200 nM and nicotinamide at 50-1500 nM . While the fusion protein capable of binding to VEGF is not particularly defined as aflibercept, however, the scope of the “fusion protein capable of binding to VEGF” would encompass aflibercept according to the specification of the ‘001 patent referring to Daly et al. (i.e. VEGF traps capable of binding to VEGF). The claims of the ‘001 patent also disclose the cell culture medium is serum-free or chemically defined. Regarding the feed medium comprising nicotinamide at 50-1500 nM or 50-800 nM (RE: claims 10 and 19) or 5-methylthioadenosine at 10-200 nM or 10-130 nM (RE: claims 11 and 20), the claims of the ‘001 patent do not disclose “feed medium”. However, as the claims of the ‘001 patent disclose a step of supplementing the cell culture medium with nicotinamide and/or 5-methylthioadenosine, and Johnson et al. teach the use of a concentrated feed medium to supplement a cell culture medium for the method of producing a recombinant protein such as aflibercept , i.e. a fusion protein capable of binding to VEGF , it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use a feed medium comprising supplemental ingredients to add to the cell culture medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding the use of soy hydrolysate in the cell culture medium (RE: claims 17-18), the claims of the ‘001 patent teach plant hydrolysate. Furthermore, Johnson et al. teach the use of soy hydrolysate (para. 59). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use soy hydrolysate for the method of the ‘001 patent. Regarding claim 14 directed to the pH of the feed medium, the claims of the ‘001 patent do not particularly teach the limitation. However, it is extremely well known in the art that the culture medium for expressing a recombinant protein such as aflibercept is typically maintained at neural pH, e.g. pH 7.0. For example, Johnson et al. teach a pH for the production of a monoclonal antibody being 7.0 + 0.15 or 7.13 + 0.27 (para. 115) . As the pH for the culture medium is about pH7.0, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the feed medium at the same pH range as the culture medium with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the claims of the ‘001 patent in view of the cited references render the claims of the instant application obvious. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TAEYOON KIM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9041 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9-5 EST Monday-Friday . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES SCHULTZ can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0763 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TAEYOON KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631